ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Inter-site comparability of 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements in healthy traveling volunteers-a multi-site and multi-magnetic field strength study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reproducibility assessment of biventricular strain derived from Long-Axis feature tracking in travelling Volunteers - A study in the Berlin research network for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (BER-CMR).The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Time-resolved 3D cine phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (4D flow CMR) enables the characterization of blood flow using basic and advanced hemodynamic parameters. However, different confounders, e.g., different field strength, scanner configurations, or sequences, might impact 4D flow CMR measurements. This study aimed to analyze the inter-site reproducibility of 4D flow CMR to determine the influence of said confounders. Methods: A cohort of 19 healthy traveling volunteers underwent 4D flow CMR at four different sites (Sites I-III: 3 T scanner; Site IV: 1.5 T scanner; all Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). Two protocols of one 4D flow CMR research sequence were performed, one acquiring velocity vector fields in the thoracic aorta only and one in the entire heart and thoracic aorta combined. Basic and advanced hemodynamic parameters, i.e., forward flow volume (FFV), peak and mean velocities (Vp and Vm), and wall shear stress (3D WSS), at nine different planes across the thoracic aorta (P1-P2 ascending aorta, P3-P5 aortic arch, P6-P9 descending aorta) were analyzed. Based on a second scan at Site I, mean values and tolerance ranges (TOL) were generated for inter-site comparison. Equivalency was assumed when confidence intervals of Sites II-IV lay within such TOL. Additionally, inter- and intra-observer analysis as well as a comparison between the two protocols was performed, using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Inter-site comparability showed equivalency in P1 and P2 for FFV, Vp, and Vm at all sites. Non-equivalency was present in various planes of P3-P9 and in P2 for 3D WSS in one protocol. In total, Site IV showed the most disagreements. Protocol comparison yielded excellent (>0.9) ICC in every plane for FFV, good (0.75-0.9) to excellent ICC for Vm and 3D WSS, good to excellent ICC in eight planes for Vp, and moderate (0.5-0.75) ICC in one plane for Vp. Inter- and intra-observer analysis showed excellent agreement for every parameter. Conclusions: Basic and advanced hemodynamic parameters revealed equivalency at different sites and field strength in the ascending aorta, a clinically important region of interest, under a highly controlled environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.